Overt and conscious media distortion perpetrated by the liberal media

[Bang]

I think the media is making the right call in keeping it from becoming a complete circus for every agenda group in the country.
IMO this guy needs to be convicted, and keeping the trial uncluttered IMO will help do that.

Do i believe the media is consciously cooperating for the greater good?
Not a chance.
I have no idea why it's so quiet.

~Bang

[IHOPSkins]

,,,,,,I have no idea why it's so quiet.......

I do

It shows Abortion in a very negative light ....not one of the Liberal Medias top ten agenda items

a) The more general knowledge people have on late term abortion...the less they support it
b) The details of the trial are Horrific,,, and are directly attributed to abortion
c) The lack of regulation/control could effect funding...and possible additional government laws and restrictions

[Larry]

I do

It shows Abortion in a very negative light ....not one of the Liberal Medias top ten agenda items

a) The more general knowledge people have on late term abortion...the less they support it
b) The details of the trial are Horrific,,, and are directly attributed to abortion
c) The lack of regulation/control could effect funding...and possible additional government laws and restrictions

Few people support late term abortion, right now.

They are almost illegal, right now. They're only allowed under very rare conditions.

And they are a miniscule percentage of abortions, right now.

----------

Granted, this clinic wasn't following those rules. (And lots of others, too.)

[IHOPSkins]

Few people support late term abortion......

They are almost illegal, right now......

FEW people is not ALL people and Almost Illegal is not Illegal....so there is still room for improvement

The question is NOT do most people agree/disagree....the question to ask is......Is the media trying to influence opinion by censoring what we hear? (or in this case, what we don't hear!).......
and of course the answer is they are censoring info because of the liberal agenda, even liberals admit it .....per my links

[Larry]

FEW people is not ALL people and Almost Illegal is not Illegal....so there is still room for improvement

Right now (at least, according to previous posts in this thread, in many states), third trimester abortions are allowed when two doctors certify, in writing, that either continuing the pregnancy is a threat to the mother's life, or that it is impossible that the fetus will live, outside the womb.

Now, I understand that some people think that forcing women to carry on a pregnancy in those circumstances would be an "improvement".

But SOME is not ALL.

The question is NOT do most people agree/disagree....the question to ask is......Is the media trying to influence opinion by censoring what we hear? (or in this case, what we don't hear!).......

And yet, far as I'm aware, Fox isn't covering it, either.

(Which really surprises me. I would certainly have expected them to be shouting about it, simply because a lot of their viewers will assume that this story represents abortions, in general.)

(It doesn't. But that's never stopped Fox, before.)

Oops. Just scrolled up and saw a post of yours I didn't see, before.

In your opinion, is Fox covering the story as much as you think it should be covered?

[twa]

differences?

http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/12/th...n-trial-gun-co

Jezebel points out the obvious, writing that “Gosnell doesn't represent or stand for abortion care in any way. Abortion, done right, is a safe medical procedure.” But this idea of a high-profile case drawing an emotional response, and the attempt to use that emotional response to drive a policy debate, ought to be familiar. Jezebel’s statement, after all, could just as easily have read: “But Adam Lanza doesn't represent or stand for gun ownership in any way. Gun ownership, done right, is a safe practice.” Jezebel notes that "fewer than 0.3% of abortion patients ever experience a complication that requires hospitalization,” according to a pro-abortion rights group. But even according to anti-gun statistics, there were only 33,000 gun-related deaths in 2011 for 300,000,000 guns owned in the country (fewer than .00012 percent). The violent crime rate in the U.S., in fact, is approaching a historical low.

[brandymac27]

IMPO, it doesn't really matter to me how much the media covers the lunatic abortion doctor. I could honestly care less, because regardless of any media coverage, I seriously doubt people's opinions on abortion are going to change, especially when it comes to late term abortions (which is what's caused such an uproar about this doctor and that disgusting clinic). Heck, even if you're pro choice, no amount of media coverage (or lack thereof) is gonna make what this guy did ok IMO.

[Bang]

I do

It shows Abortion in a very negative light ....not one of the Liberal Medias top ten agenda items

a) The more general knowledge people have on late term abortion...the less they support it
b) The details of the trial are Horrific,,, and are directly attributed to abortion
c) The lack of regulation/control could effect funding...and possible additional government laws and restrictions

OK, except no one is there. right left, middle... no one.
It seems they're having a better time reporting that no one is reporting it.

~Bang

[twa]

I have trouble with the late/early distinction.....but perhaps the press does as well

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2013/04...s-suspect.html

Let's talk about the morality of the seen and the unseen. This is a shallow morality that infects our lives. If the human entity is inside the womb, and it is cut into pieces that is one thing, but if it's "partially born" so that a nurse sees it clenching and unclenching its fists as it meets its demise, it's another. And if it slips entirely out, and everyone sees a living child and then the doctor severs its spine, then everyone is supposed to know it's murder. From the inside, these deaths are all the same. But no one sees from the inside of that now-dead brain. Why not shine a bright light on Kermit Gosnell and yell monster? Make it clear to everyone that you think he is so different from properly professional abortionists.

If you don't, you reveal that you have a nagging suspicion that he is not. And that's the one thing you don't want anyone to see.

[IHOPSkins]

.... is Fox covering the story as much as you think it should be covered?

Don't know.....they might be Over covering it......But at least they are covering it

[PeterMP]

differences?

http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/12/th...n-trial-gun-co

Jezebel points out the obvious, writing that “Gosnell doesn't represent or stand for abortion care in any way. Abortion, done right, is a safe medical procedure.” But this idea of a high-profile case drawing an emotional response, and the attempt to use that emotional response to drive a policy debate, ought to be familiar. Jezebel’s statement, after all, could just as easily have read: “But Adam Lanza doesn't represent or stand for gun ownership in any way. Gun ownership, done right, is a safe practice.” Jezebel notes that "fewer than 0.3% of abortion patients ever experience a complication that requires hospitalization,” according to a pro-abortion rights group. But even according to anti-gun statistics, there were only 33,000 gun-related deaths in 2011 for 300,000,000 guns owned in the country (fewer than .00012 percent). The violent crime rate in the U.S., in fact, is approaching a historical low.

Just want to point out that those stats (all abortion penalties per an abortion vs. gun statistics in one year) don't match up and really aren't comparable, but not really surprising for somebody that wants to push an agenda.

And that doesn't even get into the number of people affected directly.

[skinsmarydu]

OK, except no one is there. right left, middle... no one.
It seems they're having a better time reporting that no one is reporting it.

~Bang

First off, all of everything that happened in that clinic was abhorrent.The "doctor" (used to its flexable((and meant to "able the flex")) extremes) is definitely one person who needed to be stopped in their agenda.
But there will never be a doubt about where I stand.
There will always be a right-winger saying, "See, we agree!" No ****, Sherlock.
I don't agree with anything that happened in this, from patient to friggin' anything, but it does not, and will not, change what I feel about freedom.
To me, the sadness comes from the fact that these disenfranchised women had to seek out this idiot.

[twa]

fair point peter, stats are rarely comparable(or even accurate when accurate records are not available) in such diverse matters

the question here is does the media have a agenda that in what they wish to be seen and unseen.


as you know observation changes reality

[Johns Bass]

For ever freedom that we enjoy there is and always will be those who will exploit and abuse it.

...but there is no news, no sensationalism, in reporting the responsible; just the irresponsible and reprehensible...

[Jumbo]

Nicely done, Mr. Bass.

And to forestall this becoming an extended derail into another "abortion thread" (discussion adhering to the thread title is fine), I may experiment with an intervention from the exposure school of treatment , that I'd put in the "scissors" thread (another one of those times where I see a story and flinch, knowing how some of it will manifest here), of sufficient breadth and elongation that it will hopefully kill any such inclinations for this thread and draw the fire to the appropriate zone.

Or I may not.

At any rate, let's keep this thread on topic.